> On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:18:47AM +0200, Shaul Karl wrote:
> > [22:42:00 src]$ tail -n 9 tkman-2.1b4/README-tkman
> >
> > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> > documentation for documentation for any purpose, without fee, and
> > without a written agreement is hereby granted. This software is
> > provided on as "as is" basis, without any warranty whatsoever.
>
> "documentation for documentation for" looks like a classic typo
> (where the typist loses track of what's been typed and types a
> phrase twice).
>
> If that's the case it should be a trivial fix.
>
The situation is that I am trying to maintain TkMan while applying to be a
debian maintainer. The new TkMan license is stated above. Yet as far as I
understand this license is not enough for asking to get TkMan into main since
TkMan depends on rman which is in non-free.
It's been more then a week when I posted my message but "Stephen M. Moraco"
<stephen@col.hp.com>, the debian maintainer of rman did not reply me. Should I
wait more? Should I email him my message again? Is that because I am not a
debian maintainer?
I am considering approaching the author again, this time about rman. I already
approached him about TkMan and he seems to be most cooperative. Suppose I was
a debian maintainer, is it ethical of me to approach the upstream author about
a package that I do not maintain claiming that one of my motivations is the
desire to put TkMan into debian's main pool? Are there any other reasons why I
should not
approach him?
--
Shaul Karl shaulk@israsrv.net.il
An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.